Fatboy

" You all have minds of your own " " WE ALL HAVE MINDS OF OUR OWN " " You are all different " " WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT " " I'm not "

sweet

" I was blind and now i can seeeeeeeeeargghhhh!!!!!!! " The bit with the graffiti has to be the best though quality stuff

Only joking

I think its very difficult to specify a point in time when the eastern Roman Empire transformed into a Greek speaking Byzantine Empire. Although the language of the people was Greek from the start, the language of the nobility and bureaucracy continued to be Latin and was only gradually replaced by Greek. Also the machinery of government - the bureaucracy, civil service, army etc developed in an unbroken line from Imperial Rome. The armies of the Byzantine "Theme" system of the early middle ages, for example, were the direct descendants of the classic legions.Although they would have looked quite different and the emphasis was on cavalry rather than infantry ( due to the terrain in asia minor ), the discipline and organisation would have been instantly recognisible to a classical Legionaire. Supposedly, when the Byzantine Emperor ( I think it was Manuel I, or possibly John ) launched an expedition to bully the Crusader kingdoms in the 12th Century, the Latins were terrified by the cold efficiency of his army.Such a large host moving in complete silence and order was unheard of anywhere else at this time and the spooked Crusaders agreed to pay him homage rather than tangle with them. Nevertheless I think the best point to choose as the end of the old Empire and the beginning of the Byzantine Empire is the reign of Heraclius back in the 7th Century. It was during his reign that Greek was made the official language of the Empire and Byzantines began referring to him as "Basilieus" ( Greek for King ) instead of , or as well as, Emperor. The end of Heraclius's reign also witnessed the final, cataclysmic war between Rome/Byzantium and Persia/Parthia. In this epic struggle Persia was finally brought to its knees and virtually ceased to exist as a state, its cities ravaged and military destroyed. Byzantium for her part suffered almost as much, all her cities except Consatantinople were sacked during the conflict.The Islamic armies which then exploded onto the scene finished off the rubble of the Persian state with ease and repeatedly defeated the worn out Byzantine troops, eventually reaching the gates of Constaninople. Although Byzantium survived, and in time recovered its strength and most of its territory, the Empire which followed was a medieval Empire. Only Byzantium survived of the classical cities of the old Empire in anything like the shape and size it was during the classical, metropolitan Empire of times previous.This Empire retained its old prestige and would eventually become quite powerful in its own right but now it was just one of many, jostling for position in the medieval world. Heraclius's death also ended his unsuccessful attempt to bring unification between the eastern and western Churches ( although it wasn't the last ) So although there are many contenders, such as Justinian I and Micheal somethingorother, I think Heraclius stands out as the Emperor who oversaw the transition from the " Roman " to the "Greek " forms of the Empire.

UP THE CELTS!! I'm the great, great, great, great.....................grandson of Red Hugh, High King of Ireland of the mighty O'Neill clan. So, unfortunately, I'm a complete barbarian, but on the plus side I'm pure blooded Celtic royalty! :pimp: Yours, His Royal Highness, Rory Hugh O'Neill, Heir to Red Hugh and the Throne of Ireland

Speaking of primary sources, where are the best places to find them on the web ? I'm reading " The Travels of Ibn Battutah " at the moment and its amazing ( nothing to do with Rome but he does meet the Byzantine Emperor )

Pompeius, Yeah, there simply wasn't anything worth conquering in Ireland. QUOTE " Romans considered it a barbaric land " For sure, some would say it still is

Well, the Romans decided they couldn't be bothered conquering Ireland. I believe they considered it but came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth the effort. We're quite offended really

will do

It was a great big statue of the Buddha wasn't it? Damn shame

QUOTE : " lock it primuspilus, I beggeth thee... " Yes, before we all go insane! At least lock ME out, I'm starting to hallucinate.........

Primuspilus :sorry!! I completely overeacted I think Please note that I don't mind people dissagreeing with me as I can talk rubbish sometimes In fact I often look forward to you guys taking apart my arguments I actually didn't take either side in the disscussion( I tentatively called it a draw ) Its just ZZT came out of the blue with SUCH a condacending and patronising tone that it just struck a nerve with me. ( plus I've had a bad day ) No hard feelings ZZT, you obviously do know what youre talking about when it comes to China ( more than me anyway ), just try not to talk to me like I'm an idiot please Oh by the way, I knew about the language feature - I just thought it looked cool that way :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:

ZZT, You quote part of my post referring to the differing styles of eastern and western ways of war and then say " Wow Chinese and Persians both use their cavalry to envelop their enemies. That makes them the same. Really consider what you are writing before you write it. " Well you can kiss my ass with that sarcastic tone for starters. I never said that makes them the same, I was simply pointing out fundamental truths about the STYLES western/eastern warfare. If you bother to read my posts you'll see that I point out how our assumptions of the similarities between the Persians and the Chinese QUOTE "are due to ignorance more than anything else" but how we can use the Persians as a guide to the style of warfare that would ensue because of the differing cultural approach to war between east and west throughout history.The statement is true in itself, I'm not trying to say anything about the Persians and the Han being " the same " You then go on to say " whats stopping China from doing the same thing to the Romans? " effectively agreeing with me So maybe you should try and understand what other people are talking about before YOU write. I understand that you seem to know more about the details of the Han military than most of us so others speculation probably pisses you off, but you seem to be talking it very personal. You would have been better off HELPING by filling us in about the Han so we would not have to speculate so much instead of attacking everyone just because we don't know so much about China. This site is about Rome, ignorance of Chinese Dynastic warfare is to be expected, so (edited by system) the Han and (edited by system) you too

Yes, that would be pretty late I still think they should excavate as soon as they can though. Viggen posted up a site where it says that several of the worlds leading classical scholars have joined together to form the Herculaneum pressure group they say " A treasure of greater cultural importance can scarcely be imagined " and the site itself says " it would be hard to exaggerate what is at stake here: nothing less than the lost intellectual inheritance of western civilisation " I agree with both statements Surely you don't think that the worlds only intact classical library is just as well left in the ground while hundreds of comparitively insignificant excavations go ahead? On the contrary, it seems hugely important to me that we gain access to this unique material, for it will greatly enrich our understanding classical thought and our own cultural heritage - and thats something that should happen as soon as possible

I have Medieval TW, how does it measure up to Rome TW ?

QUOTE " isn't it hard to be the persecutor unless you are impowered in some way? " very true, its easier to turn the other cheek when you have no option. Its when people are impowered that they show their true colours The capacity for persecution seems to be a universal human trait.A good example is how Jews, sick of centuries of horrendus persecution in Europe, formed a state which has grown to become a persecutor of its palestinian subjects. Everybody does it. ( if the shoe was on the other foot Palestinian persecution of the Israeli's would be just as bad - if not much worse ) As an Irishman, we often complain about centuries of occupation and repression by the English, but the thing is, if we ever had the opportunity we probably would have done the same thing to them, not an isle of " saints and scholars ", we simply didn't have the capability to throw our weight around. QUOTE " to constantly refer to Christians and Muslims is to sink into broad generalisations " again, very true. You'll find that I specialise in broad generalisations..... QUOTE " Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree for now " No problemo, I'm sure we'll have ROUND 2 the next time I make an unprovoked assault on your belief system.

Yes, ancient historians tend to be compromised by the point of view they're coming from. So not so great for hard information but brilliant for getting a true flavour of the times and a glimpse at how they saw the world.

It seems they have been quite successful with the ones they have already worked on so I think the technology must be there now, but yeah, if they were to go to work on it and end up destroying all the material that really would suck

I agree with Silentium in regard to Government control over key economic activities.The American free market system may make the people with money happy but people who can't afford things like vital medical care are not so happy. Also, the forced exportation of this system to the rest of the world through the IMF is bleeding the rest of the world dry - state run services are being sucked up by multinational companies all accross the world in countries where people can't afford to pay for them.Privatisation has been an unmitigated disater almost every where it's been introduced. I'm sure a lot of you guys are American so you won't be too pleased with my example of a well run country - its France. A free economy but the IMPORTANT things - water, healthcare, transport, electricity are controlled by the government. After all they are ANSWERABLE to somebody , companies exist to make a profit and thats all, they say "We care" but they don't. I mean if a government doesn't do these things, what does it do? Look for countries to invade? This free market is as close to anarchy as it gets, multinationals act with virtual impunity throughout the third world. Oh, and about the Anarchists, yeah, its hilarious that the very people who are calling for anarchy are the same crusty lefties who would be gobbled up on the first day af any such situation by nasty men with guns. And thus the state of Anarchy dissappears as soon as it begins........ Americans reading this, don't be too offended, your country has done some great things down the years ( like save the free world for one ) , but here in Europe ( I'm Irish ) we not impressed by the reduction of civil liberties and financial free for all - we think the US is heading in a scary direction Also don't be offended crusty lefties - you're maybe the only truly good people left nowadays

yeah, Gladiator rocked, one of the chief reasons being Commodus.Tortured and twisted, a sympathetic bad guy makes all the difference. In Troy though, they seemed afraid to embellish any of the characters and left them all very shallow - and then felt free to have Ammagemnon die at Troy! I nearly put my foot through the TV

Marcus , I certainly agree with your comparison between early Christianity and early Islam. Christianity as practiced by its early adherents was definitely nothing like the repressive machine of the middle ages - the " Universal " church with claims of temporal power. Islam is a different kettle of fish.These days it is fashionable to demonise Islam, and this has lead to a reaction from people claiming that Islam is a peaceful religion and its true doctrine is one of benevolent understanding.Not so, from the word go Islam launched an unparalleled military assault on the entire world - it was a very aggressive religion. People talk of the crusades as some sort of shameful act of aggression by the Christian world even though Christians had been on the recieving end of centuries of Islamic assaults by this time. This of course is balanced by the fact that at the peak of Islamic civilisation, when the Baghdad caliphate was the worlds intellectual powerhouse, there was a respect and at times an affinity for the other great religions( " people of the book " ) unheard of in Europe. Its all swings and roundabouts really, I guess it depends on the time, place, and who's calling the shots. As for the less aggressive attitute of Christianity and Judaism well, Judaism has always been quite insular and not so inclined to attempts to impose their religion on others but the Catholic Church that developed from original Christianity definitely didn't take kindly to dissention, as in the fate of the Cathars etc.The Orthodox Church was never quite so ruthless with the likes of the Paulicians but wasn't far behind. Also as time went on the church became quite strident in its aim of converting the whole globe to Christianity. Monoatheisms certainly did introduce a set of ( very sensible ) moral laws but a lot of it was cobbled together from previous ideas. Ursus's mentioning of the similarities between Stoicism and Christianity brings up the point that great swathes of both the Bible and the Koran were simply lifted wholesale from pagan mythology/philosophy. Hang on, his point seems to be that Monoatheisms are a natural progression from paganism, which seems to make sense so I'm demolishing my own argument ( which I vaguely remember was some sort of rant against the very existance of monoatheisms )...........ah well. Anyway to your final point " Tolerance - its a myth altogether " Yeah, your right, its not the religions themselves which are so intolerant but the people who practice them - and people just aren't a very tolerant bunch generally. So, my rash assault on monoatheism in general was a bit over the top, but I stand by my assertion that the exclusivity of the monoatheisms has caused a lot of bloodshed over the years for reasons that were alien to pagans, and that as they have accumulated dogma over the years have become more oppressive to the everyday lives of people than polyatheisms ever were. To sum up : Tolerance IS a myth but monoatheims are less tolerant than most

sure does, thanks

Hmmnn... as usual I've made a lot of sweeping generalisations which are hard to defend, but sure I'll have a go anyway. You say "The Roman Republic and Empire justified all of its conquests with the Gods. In fact every Empire in the ancient world that was aggressive was pagan " The Romans may have justified its conquests with the Gods but it was never really a motivational factor for their wars. Their wars were for very temporal reasons - there was no equivilent of a crusade or a jihad in the pagan world. As for aggressive pagan empires, damn right they were - aggressive expansionism is pretty much a pre-requisite to have an empire in the first place. Its the idea of religious war I'm talking about, people are always going to have wars but truly religious wars are something that came with the monoatheisms and its something we are still suffering the effects from today - all over the world are conflicts which have degenerated into religious killing matches with hardly any resemblance to the original dispute and little signs ( or prospect ) of resolution. Just the mention of Carthage though makes me want to soften on my position on what I said was the unequalled cruelty and intolerance of monoatheisms - after all the Roman treatment of defeated Carthage was not exactly tolerant and more than a bit cruel - to a degree any religious fanatic would find hard to match You say " The Roman Empire was tolerant of all Religions except those who weren't tolerant of other religions " Erm.... thats presicely what I was saying, it was Christianity's ( and Judaisms ) intolerance of the co-existence of their and other peoples gods which left Rome with a direct threat on its belief system which would never have come from any of the pagan religions.I never tried to make out the Romans as tolerant, its the intolerence of monoatheist dogma I'm talking about - the Romans never had "thought police" in the manner of Christianity or Islam.Rome would have had to be outrageously tolerant indeed to not take issue with a religion which specifically stated their gods were fake. You say " they couldn't tolerate a view different than their own " You say yourself earlier that they tolerated all religions except those who didn't tolerate other religions. So they could tolerate different points of view , just not ones which actually attacked their own beliefs. Compared to the likes of Christianity or Islam thats pretty tolerant.

I suppose you meet the odd person who say they do, but they're always scary nutcases with a nasty glint in their eye. If thats whos going to heaven we're probably better off in hell.